ID: 2661y

Satoshi Nishibori, Vice President
Industry-Government Affairs
Nissan Research & Development, Inc.
750 17th Street NW
Suite 902
Washington, DC 20006

Dear Mr. Nishibori:

This responds to your letter dated June 28, 1990 requesting an interpretation of how the requirements of FMVSS 101, Controls and Displays, would apply to two vehicle systems Nissan is considering using.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter and during a discussion between Kazuo Iwasaki of your staff and Mary Versailles of my staff in our offices on July 13th.

I. Car Phone

Nissan is considering introducing a car phone in certain passenger cars which has five illuminated displays. The first display shows the number being dialed. The display is illuminated whether or not the phone is in use, and the number dialed continues to be displayed while the phone is in use.

The second display illuminates the push buttons. The display becomes illuminated when the first button is pushed, and remains illuminated for 10 seconds.

The remainder of the car phone displays are LED indicators. The first indicator (IU) is illuminated when the phone is "in use". The second indicator (NS) is illuminated when cellular phone service is not available. The third indicator (RM) is illuminated when outside the system's local operating area if the system is able to lock onto an available phone line. It is our understanding that there will be times when none of these three LED's will be illuminated and times when more than one of the LEDs could be illuminated (for example, both the IU and RM indicators).

None of the car phone displays can be turned off while the ignition switch is in the "ON" position. The illumination is not variable in any display.

You asked whether the car phone displays are "telltales" or other "sources of illumination," within the meaning of section S5.3.5, and whether the system is consistent with the requirements of FMVSS 101.

Based upon our understanding of their functioning, the three LED indicators (IU, NS, and RM) would appear to be telltales. Both the IU and RM displays "indicate the actuation of a device", while the NS display indicates "a failure to function". Because the displays are not listed in the standard, and because they are exempt from the requirements of section S5.3.5 because they are telltales, they are not subject to any illumination requirements.

The other displays are not telltales. The functions of both the first display ("number dialed") and the second display ("push button") are not among those listed in the definition of a telltale. The "number dialed" display provides information in much the same way as a fuel gauge. The illumination of the push buttons functions to facilitate dialing.

Because these displays are not among those listed in Standard No. 101, and because they are not telltales, they are subject to the requirements of section S5.3.5. Therefore, these displays must "have either (1) light intensity which is manually or automatically adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, (2) a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or (3) a means of being turned off." Based upon your description, none of these requirements are currently met.

II. Air-conditioning Indicator Light

In certain vehicles, Nissan uses an indicator light that is illuminated only if both the air-conditioning operating switch and the ignition switch are in the "ON" position. You indicate that you believe the indicator is a telltale, and that if it is a telltale "it would appear to meet the requirements of section 5.3.4, since the display is bright enough to be visible in all ambient lighting conditions."

Because the indicator light indicates actuation of a device, i.e., the air conditioner, you are correct that it is a telltale. NHTSA would like to clarify that, with the exception of the requirements of section S5.3.5, FMVSS 101 regulates only controls and displays listed in the standard. Since the air-conditioning indicator light you describe is not listed in the standard, and because telltales are exempt from the requirements of section S5.3.5, there are no illumination requirements.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:101 d:9/l8/90

ID: 2662o

Leonard Cain, Director
School Building and Transportation
Mississippi State Department of Education
Suite 306, Sillers Office Building
P.O. Box 771
Jackson, MS 39205-077l

Dear Mr. Cain:

This letter responds to your inquiry of July 30, 1987, in which you pose some questions concerning the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards and Standard 17 to certain vehicles used for transporting school students. I apologize for the delay in this response.

Before I answer your specific questions, I think it might be useful to give you some general information on the Federal role in school bus regulation. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) deals with school buses under two different Federal laws: the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Vehicle Safety Act), and the Highway Safety Act.

In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act and directed NHTSA to issue safety standards respecting certain elements of school bus performance, and addressing any person who manufactures or sells a new "school bus." The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards issued under this Act are mandatory Federal standards that apply to school bus manufacturers and sellers. A school bus manufacturer must certify its vehicles as complying with Federal standards that are applicable to school buses. A seller may not sell a vehicle that does not comply with those standards if the seller has reason to know that the buyer intends to use the vehicle as a school bus.

NHTSA defines "school bus" as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. Note that in determining whether a vehicle is a school bus, one must consider both the vehicle's seating capacity, and its intended use.

Under the Highway Safety Act, NHTSA has issued guidelines (23 CFR No. 17, Highway Safety Program Standard) that cover a wide range of subjects relative to school bus identification, operation, and maintenance. Different practices apply to "school vehicles" under the guidelines depending upon whether the vehicle is "Type I" or "Type II." This agency may recommend that an individual State adopt all or part of these guidelines as the State's own policy governing student transportation programs. However, pursuant to the Highway Safety Act, NHTSA does not require compliance with these guidelines. Instead, each individual State decides whether it will adopt some or all of these "Standard 17" guidelines.

Please keep this information in mind as I answer your questions in order. I have assumed in answering your questions that the activities to which you refer are school-related.

Question 1a: Does a vehicle (type 1 bus) purchased by a local public school district for transporting students for only activity purposes have to conform to all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards?

The answer to your question is "yes." However, the agency's regulatory and enforcement authority is directed toward the person manufacturing or selling a school bus. This agency can not regulate purchase or use of a school bus, and consequently can not require a school district to purchase a particular kind of vehicle for transporting students. As noted above, the definition of "school bus" includes vehicles sold for transporting students to and from school-related events. An activity bus is a school bus under this functional definition. Therefore, a manufacturer or seller of a vehicle who has reason to believe that the vehicle's intended use is solely for transporting students to and from school-related activities must ensure its compliance with any Federal safety standard that applies to a school bus.

Question 1b: Does a bus purchased and used solely for activity purposes have to be painted school bus yellow?

School bus color is a matter addressed under the guidelines set out in "Standard 17" discussed above. Accordingly, the answer to your question depends on the laws and regulations of Mississippi. There is no Federal standard requiring that a manufacturer or seller paint a school bus a particular color.

Question 2a: Does a van (designed to carry 11 or more persons) purchased by a local public school district for transporting students for only activity purposes have to conform to all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards?

Recall again that our regulations are directed to school bus manufacturers and sellers. A van designed to carry 11 or more persons, and intended to transport students to and from school-related events is a "school bus" under the agency's definition. Therefore, a manufacturer or seller would have to ensure the vehicle's compliance with any applicable Federal safety standard. To determine whether a local school district may use a noncomplying vehicle it purchases, you must look to state law.

Question 2b: Does a van purchased and used solely for activity purposes have to be painted school bus yellow?

Again, for the reasons set out in my answer to Question 1b, the answer to this question depends on the laws of your State.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:57l d:2/23/88

ID: 2662y

Mr. Gerald F. Vinci
Sun Refining and Marketing Company
Tenn Penn Center
1801 Market St.
Philadelphia, PA 19103-1699

Dear Mr. Vinci:

This responds to your August 14, 1990 letter and telephone calls about your plans to convert the fuel system on a vehicle from gasoline to propane. You said your company ("Sun Refining") would like to purchase a new vehicle and convert it for purposes of your own research, and will not be reselling the vehicle. You ask about the requirements that would apply to the conversion.

We do not have any requirements that would apply to the conversion if the conversion is made by Sun itself. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and NHTSA's regulations generally do not apply to a vehicle after the vehicle is sold to a consumer (e.g., Sun) for purposes other than resale. Although the Act prohibits certain entities from tampering with or removing federally required safety features, the prohibition does not apply to modifications by a vehicle owner to his or her own vehicle.

However, in the event you have the conversion done by a party other than your company, Federal law may apply. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative federally required safety features when modifying a vehicle. I have enclosed an information sheet that discusses the application of 108(a)(2)(A) to fuel system conversions.

NHTSA wishes to learn more about the safety of propane fuel systems and is considering a public announcement seeking information on various safety issues. We would, therefore, be interested in the results of your research when they're completed.

Even though your conversion would not be covered by the FMVSS's, we suggest you consult State law to see if the State has requirements for propane vehicles. In addition, other Federal agencies may have regulations for your vehicle. If your vehicle would be a commercial vehicle, the regulations of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) may apply. I have forwarded a copy of your letter to FHWA for their reply. You might also contact the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for information about the conversion. EPA's general telephone number is (202) 382-2090.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure /ref:301#VSA d:9/l7/90

ID: 2663o

Mr. Jay Costa
Assistant Procurement Specialist
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
Exchange Bldg., 821 Second Ave.
Seattle, Washington 98104

Dear Mr. Costa:

I am responding to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR /571.217). Specifically, you expressed concern that some transit system passengers are opening the rear emergency exits on your public transit vehicles. Apparently, some passengers open these emergency exits to commit acts of vandalism. You state that "in the interest of safety the rear emergency window (in these vehicles) should be removed and replaced with a non-operable type window." You asked whether Standard 217 would prohibit your body shop from modifying your transit buses in this manner.

Assuming that your body shop does not hold itself out to the public as a business that repairs motor vehicles for compensation, the shop would not be prohibited from modifying the buses as you describe.

Under paragraph S5.2.1 of Standard 217, buses that have a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more (such as your transit buses) must have at least one rear emergency exit, unless the configuration of the bus precludes installing an accessible rear exit. The manufacturer of your buses has stated that the bus configuration does not preclude installing an accessible rear exit. Therefore, your manufacturer must deliver buses that are equipped with a rear emergency exit.

On the other hand, your repair shop is subject to different considerations. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) prohibits certain commercial establishments from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design included on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. In your example, the rear emergency exit is an element of design included in the buses in compliance with an applicable safety standard, and removing these exits would render inoperative that element of design.

However, the "render inoperative" prohibition applies only to manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses. A "motor vehicle repair business" is defined in /108(a)(2)(A) as "any person who holds himself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation." Please note that the "render inoperative" provision does not apply to a vehicle owner. The vehicle owner may modify his or her vehicle without violating any Federal requirements, irrespective of whether the modification affects the vehicle's compliance with a safety standard.

Assuming that your transit system body shop does not hold itself out to the public as being in the business of repairing motor vehicles for compensation, it can make the modification you describe without violating any Federal requirements.

The problem you describe apparently involves the design for releasing the kind of emergency window exit in your vehicles. Standard 217 does not require a specific design for releasing an emergency exit. Rather, the Standard sets out a ceiling for the magnitude of force necessary to release the exit, and a required direction for applying the release force. The transit system could replace the "operable" rear emergency window with a push-out window or other type of design that would still meet the release requirements of Standard 217, yet make it difficult or impossible for a passenger to commit the acts of vandalism you describe.

Please note that the purpose of our emergency exit requirements for buses is to facilitate quick and safe rider exit in the event of an emergency. Though nothing prohibits you from modifying the vehicles to close off the rear emergency exit, I urge you to give your fullest consideration to the implications of making this modification. It is NHTSA's position that compliance with Standard 217 is the safest way to facilitate vehicle exit in an emergency, and it is my opinion that you needn't eliminate the rear window exit to resolve your problem. Further, you might want to check with the State of Washington to learn if it prohibits modifications that would make your transit buses no longer comply with Standard 217.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:VSA#217 d:2/23/88

ID: 2663y

Samson Helfgott, Esq.
Helfgott & Karas, P.C.
60th Floor
Empire State Building
New York, NY l0ll8-0ll0

Dear Mr. Helfgott:

This is in reply to your letter of June ll, l990 (Your file CAIN 8877), with respect to the permissibility under Standard No. l08 of the use of amber lamps on the rear of motor vehicles.

You have referenced our letter to you of March 30, l989, on the use of a single amber lamp adjacent to, but separate from, the center highmounted stop lamp. Your client wishes to utilize the amber center lamp in conjunction with rear amber turn signal lamps to provide an amber triangular array on the rear. The array would be activated when the ignition is turned on, and remain activated except when the stop lamps were activated (which, with the red center lamp, provide a red triangular array). With respect to the triangular amber lamp array you have asked the following four questions:

"l. The possibility of utilizing the amber turn signals as tail lights, instead of the red tail lamps. This is the same as is now in effect on the front of all vehicles."

Standard No. l08 requires that the color of taillamps be red. Therefore amber turn signal lamps could not serve as substitutes for taillamps. Your comment about frontal lighting is not exactly in point. A turn signal lamp may be combined with a parking lamp (provided the requirements for each are met) but Standard No. l08 requires that both be amber in color.

"2. The possibility of supplementing existing tail lamps with the presence of the amber lamps."

We do not regard this as a true supplement because the color of the array differs from that of the taillamps required by Standard No. l08. However, like taillamps, the array is intended to indicate the presence of a vehicle. The question is, whether an array of three amber lamps would impair the effectiveness of the required two red taillamps. As we advised in our letter of March 30, l989, additional lighting equipment is permissible as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires. We cautioned that you should consider whether steady-burning amber lamps might confuse following drivers, who would probably be unused to seeing steady burning amber lamps on the rear of a vehicle. Because you have not informed us as to the intended candela of the array, we cannot advise with any assurance whether the amber array would impair the effectiveness of the required red taillamps. Certainly if the candela of the triple amber arrray exceeded that of the red taillamps a basis would appear to exist for a judgment of impairment.

"3. The possibility of using the amber lamps as daytime running lamps on the rear of a vehicle."

Under this scenario, the amber array would function as daytime presence lamps, a function not provided by any rear lighting system required by Standard No. l08. The question therefore is whether such a system would impair the effectiveness of the signal lamps required by Standard No. l08. These are hazard warning signals, turn signals, and stop lamps.

With respect to the hazard warning signals, these operate through the turn signal lamps, and, although operable when the vehicle is in motion, they are designed to operate when the ignition is not on (i.e., when the triple array would be deactivated). Therefore, we do not believe that the triple array would impair the effectiveness of the hazard warning signals.

As for impairment of the turn signals, we must distinguish between those that are amber and those that are red. Again, we raise the possibility that confusion could exist if the candela of the triple array exceeds that of an amber turn signal system. It is imperative that following drivers understand without hesitation the signals provided by other vehicles in front of them. Confusion may be less likely to exist if the required signal lamp and the triple array differ in color.

Concerning the stop lamps, you have informed us that the triple array is deactivated when the stop lamps come on. In this event, there would be appear to be no impairment of the stop signals.

"4. The possibility of utilizing the 'amber triangular array' as described above."

In our view, no specific Federal rulemaking appears required for your client to offer its system for installation on motor vehicles, subject to the constraints expressed in this letter and the letter of March 30, l989. As the earlier letter explains, the determination of whether there is impairment is initially made by a manufacturer who wishes to offer the system as new vehicle equipment. In the aftermarket, installation of the system must not, in effect, result in impairment of required lighting equipment, but nevertheless the system is subject to State and local lighting laws. We have forwarded a copy of your letter and our response to the agency's Office of Research and Development for their information. We appreciate your client's interest in motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:9/l7/90

ID: 2664o

Captain Robert W. Barthelmess
Box 5744
APO, NY 09633

Dear Captain Barthelmess:

This is in reply to your letter of December 30, 1987, to this agency with respect to the requirements for importing tires without the DOT symbol.

You have asked whether the DOT symbol must still appear on the tires of vehicles that conform to the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The answer is yes; there has been no change in the requirement that the DOT symbol appear on the sidewall of tires manufactured as either original or replacement equipment. The DOT is the manufacturer's certification of compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In your letter, you stated that one individual at the Army Air Force Exchange Service indicated that the DOT symbol had been replaced by a series of numbers. This individual may have confused the requirement for the DOT symbol with a different Federal requirement for an identification number to appear on tires. The tire identification number, among other things, assists in the tracing and recalling of tires which may prove to be noncomplying or defective. The requirement for the tire identification number is in addition to, not in place of, the requirement for the DOT symbol.

You have also asked (with reference to service personnel like yourself who recently bought non-DOT marked tires for your U.S. type automobiles) whether there is a technical possibility of denial of entry to vehicles certified as meeting U.S. safety specification but equipped with tires not bearing the DOT symbol. The general procedure is that when a motor vehicle arrives at the port of entry it will be inspected to see whether it bears the manufacturer's certification of compliance (generally in the driver's door post area). We do not know whether Customs makes it a practice to inspect vehicles of U.S. origin for this certificate when a serviceman is returning to the States. If an inspection occurs and the vehicle bears the certification, the vehicle is admitted without further inspection. It is possible, of course, that a Customs inspector could happen to notice in passing the lack of the DOT symbol on the tires. In this instance, as the vehicle would not be in conformity with all applicable standards, the Customs inspector could require entry of the vehicle under bond, which would be released upon the importer's production of a statement to this agency that the noncompliance had been corrected. Although we are not aware of any instance in which this has actually happened, you may wish to contact Customs with respect to its inspection procedures. You may also wish to write Goodyear asking for a statement that the Vector tires comply with Standard No. 109, which could be presented to Customs should questions arise.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:MIS d:2/24/88

ID: 2664y

Mr. A. Roger Hirstein
Industry Development Center
3M Commercial Graphics Div.
3M Center, BUilding 220-6W-06
St. Paul, MN 55144-1000

Dear Mr. Hirstein:

This is in reply to your letter of June 1, l990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. One of your customers has asked whether 3M's Diamond Grade Reflective Sheeting can be used in a red and white block pattern on the side of a trailer for conspicuity without violating Standard No. l08. Your interpretation is that the Sheeting can be used in addition to devices meeting the requirements of Standard No. l08 but not in place of them.

You are essentially correct. However, because we do not know both the pattern and location of the design, whether "side" includes the front and rear of a trailer, the reflective qualities of your sheeting, who will apply the sheeting, and whether the application will occur before or after delivery of the trailer to its purchaser, we can only provide general guidelines.

Under S5.1.3 of Standard No. l08, supplementary reflective devices, i.e., devices other than those required by the standard, may be installed and present on vehicles at the time of their first sale as long as they do not impair the effectiveness of lamps and reflectors required by the standard. The initial determination of whether there is impairment is to be made by the manufacturer who certifies that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If that decision appears incorrect to the agency, NHTSA will advise accordingly.

After the initial sale, the supplementary reflective devices may be installed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business subject to the limitation in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that such installation not "render inoperative in whole or in part" any of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. l08. There is no statutory prohibition under the Act against owner modifications, even if they involve impairing or removing devices required by Standard No. l08. However, the trailer would still remain subject to the laws of the individual States in which the trailer is registered and operated, and (if applicable), to the regulations of the Office of Motor Carrier Standards of the Federal Highway Administration.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ ref:l08 d:9/l4/90

ID: 2665o

The Honorable Charles Wilson
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Wilson:

This is in response to your letter of December 9, 1987, to Ms. Brenda Brown, Office of Congressional Affairs, Department of Transportation, which has been forwarded to this Office for reply. Unfortunately, the Department has no record of receiving your previous letter of August 19, 1987.

You have written on behalf of your constituent Mr. W. P. Brandon of Palestine who has designed a "Wide Right Turn" signal for installation on the rear of trailers. The device consists of the words "Wide Right Turn" and an arrow, in black on a "caution yellow" background. The device is attached to the lower right rear of a trailer, and flashes when the turn indicator is positioned for a right turn. Mr. Brandon asks three questions with respect to his device, which I shall answer shortly.

Preliminarily let me note that the applicable Federal law and regulation are, respectively, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of l966, and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Standard No. l08 permits a supplementary lighting device such as Mr. Brandon's as original trailer equipment if it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires, such as the standard turn signal system. The Vehicle Safety Act permits it as aftermarket trailer equipment if its installation by a person other than the trailer owner does not render inoperative, wholly or in part, equipment installed on the trailer pursuant to Standard No. l08 or any other safety standard.

With these general remarks in mind, we reach the three questions that Mr. Brandon asked.

"l. Is there any rule regarding the placement of a flashing 'Wide Right Turn' signal on the lower right rear of a trailer?"

The answer is no, as long as there is no impairment of the effectiveness of the other rear lamps (i.e., the standard turn signal must continue to operate when the lever is in the position indicating a right turn, but the wide turn signal should not operate when the hazard warning signals (which operate through the turn signal lamps) are on). "2. Can the signal be black letters on a safety yellow background or should it be another color"?

The agency does not prescribe the color of supplementary lighting devices, and color is subject only to the "impairment" restriction. Required lighting equipment on the rear of trailers may be white (back up lamps), amber (turn signals), or red (the alternative color for turn signals, and the required color for taillamps and stop lamps). I am unsure what "safety yellow" is, but it would not appear to impair the effectiveness of the red, amber, or white lamps on the trailer's rear.

"3. Are there any restrictions on manufacturing of the signal insofar as materials or construction are concerned?"

There are no Federal restrictions or requirements. However, supplementary lighting devices such as Mr. Brandon's are subject to regulation in all their aspects by the States in which they will be sold and used. We are not conversant with State regulations on this subject, and suggest that, for further advice, Mr. Brandon contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 120l Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

We appreciate Mr. Brandon's interest in safety, and your writing us with respect to his "Wide Turn Signal" device.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:2/19/88

ID: 2665y

Mr. Dean A. Palius
Program Manager
Via Systems
1328 Cimarron Drive
Santa Ynez, CA 93460

Dear Mr. Palius:

This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff, seeking an interpretation of the effects of a procedural provision that appears in the compliance test procedures for Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, but not in the standard itself. Specifically, you asked whether crash testing under Standard No. 208 must be conducted only with a tow road 500 feet in length. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations for you.

Before addressing your specific question, it might be helpful to begin with some general background information. Each of this agency's safety standards specifies test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. NHTSA precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing.

In addition to the test conditions and procedures set forth in the safety standards themselves, the agency has provided guidelines to the test facilities that the agency enters into contracts with to conduct compliance tests for the agency. These guidelines are called compliance test procedures. The compliance test procedures are intended to provide a standardized testing and data recording format among the various contractors that perform testing on behalf of the agency, so that the test results will reflect the performance characteristics of the product being tested, not differences between the various testing facilities.

The compliance test procedures must, of course, not be inconsistent with the procedures and conditions that are set forth in the relevant safety standard. However, the compliance test procedures do, on occasion, specify procedures and conditions that go beyond what is set forth in the relevant standard. These more detailed test procedures and conditions are requirements only for the contractor test facility in conducting tests on behalf of the agency.

With that background, I will now address your specific question. A manufacturer must certify that its vehicles will comply with the requirements of Standard No. 208 when they are tested in accordance with the procedures set forth in various sections of the standard, including S5, S8, S10, and S11. These sections specify that the vehicle shall be traveling longitudinally forward at any speed up to and including 30 miles per hour (mph). However, these sections do not specify any particular length for a tow road for crash testing. Accordingly, the manufacturer's certification of compliance with Standard No. 208 may be based on tests using a tow road of any length, provided that all applicable conditions in Standard No. 208 are satisfied.

You correctly noted that NHTSA's compliance test procedures currently specify that the tow road should be at least 500 feet in length. This length was chosen for agency compliance testing to ensure the test dummies' positioning would not be affected by the acceleration of the vehicle and that the test dummies' positioning would be stabilized before impact. Tow roads of this length also allow sufficient room to abort the test if needed. Please note that, although a manufacturer is not required to use a 500-foot tow road in its certification testing, a shorter tow road that affected the dummies' positioning might not provide an adequate basis for certifying that the tested vehicle complies with the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208.

Please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions on this subject.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:208 d:9/l4/90

ID: 2666y

Mr. William Shapiro
Volvo Cars of North America
Rockleigh, NJ 07647

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This responds to your letter about the built-in child seat Volvo has designed for the center rear seating position. The built-in seat uses the vehicle's lap-shoulder safety belt to restrain the child. I regret the delay in responding.

You indicated in a telephone conversation that Volvo is considering designing the seat solely for children who weigh more than 50 pounds. Such a seat is not subject to the requirements of Standard 213 because the seat is not a "child restraint" as that term is defined in the standard. Paragraph S4 of Standard 213 defines a child restraint system as "any device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds."

The agency would determine whether your built-in seat is designed solely for children weighing more than 50 pounds by considering available indications of the manufacturer's design intent, e.g., the physical suitability of the seat for use by children who weigh less than 50 pounds, and the manner in which the seat is labeled and marketed. The agency would look to see whether the seat is clearly and permanently labeled to show the size and age of children intended to be restrained by the system. We would also consider any indications in Volvo's marketing efforts and point of sale materials regarding the size and age of child that the seat is designed to restrain. Finally, we would consider any size and age information included in the vehicle's owner manual.

You also indicated Volvo may consider designating the seat as suitable for children weighing more than 40 pounds. If the seat were so designated, it would no longer be a seat designed solely for children weighing more than 50 pounds, and therefore be a child restraint system subject to Standard 213.

You ask whether, if Standard 213 applies to your seat, the standard permits such a seat. You state that the seat would meet the labeling and performance requirements of the standard. You believe that Standard 213 permits the seat because the final rule that amended 213 to set requirements directly applicable to built-in seats (53 FR 1783; January 22, 1988) said that paragraph S5.4.3.3 of the standard allows child restraint systems other than a 5-point harness system.

You are correct that the standard does not require the use of a harness in a child restraint system. Paragraph S5.4.3.3 provides, in part, that "each child restraint system . . . that has belts designed to restrain the child" must comply with the specific requirements of S5.4.3.3 (i.e., provide upper and lower torso restraint, and a crotch restraint (for seats for children weighing over 20 pounds), of a specific form). The definition of a "child restraint system" specifically excludes the vehicle's lap/shoulder belts from the coverage of the standard. Thus, under that definition and the language of S5.4.3.3, the specific requirements of S5.4.3.3 on harness systems applies only to seats that have belts, and not to a seat such as yours that uses the vehicle's belt system.

Please note that Standard 213 sets limits on knee excursion for built-in seats (S5.1.3.1(b)). Thus, although your seat is not required to have a crotch strap, the seat must be designed to prevent a child from sliding excessively forward and down, legs first ("submarining").

The agency would like to emphasize its concern that when a vehicle lap belt is used with a child restraint system to restrain a child, the lap belt should be positioned so that it does not apply impact loads to the abdomen of the child, the area most vulnerable to the forces imposed by the belt. Instead, the vehicle lap belt should be held in place by the child restraint so that it passes over the pelvis of a child, the area of the body best able to withstand the forces imposed by the vehicle belt. We cannot determine from your drawing whether the vehicle lap belt would be properly positioned and securely held by the restraint. The instructions for the proper use of the built-in seat that are required by S5.6.2 of the standard should inform users how to properly adjust the belt system, so to avoid submarining and imposing impact loads to the child's abdomen.

The agency is also concerned that the sitting height of some children who may occupy the seat might not be high enough for the shoulder belt to be properly positioned when attached. Instead, the belt might pass in front of the child's neck or face. For those cases, if no other option is available, NHTSA believes that the shoulder belt should be placed behind the child's back. We recommend that you include information in the printed instructions about such adjusting of the shoulder belt for small children. As a reminder, NHTSA will use these adjustment instructions per S6.1.2.3.1 to position the three year old dummy in the seat if the agency tests the seat in its compliance program.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:213 d:9/l4/90